The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: Elderberry on November 26, 2023, 10:43:43 pm
-
FEE by Jon Miltimore 11/22/2023
The claim that a new federal law mandates that every new motor vehicle includes technology that could disable the vehicle might sound preposterous, but it's actually true. Here are the receipts.
In November 2021, former US Representative from Georgia Bob Barr wrote a little-noticed political column claiming that buried inside President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislation was a dangerous provision that would go into effect in five years.
“Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a ‘vehicle kill switch,’” wrote Barr, who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 2008.
Like most Americans, I had never heard of this alleged “kill switch” until a few days ago when Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, proposed to strip the mandate’s funding.
“The right to travel is fundamental, but the government has mandated a kill-switch in new vehicles sold after 2026,” said Massie. “The kill-switch will monitor driver performance and disable cars based on the information gathered.”
Nineteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat in opposing Massie’s amendment, which failed.
True or False?
The claim that the feds would mandate that every new motor vehicle include technology that could disable the vehicle seemed ludicrous. So I started Googling.
To my relief, I saw several fact-checkers at legacy institutions had determined the “kill switch” mandate was not true.
Unfortunately, my relief evaporated once I looked at the bill itself.
Sec. 24220 of the law explicitly states: “[T]o ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.”
The legislation then goes on to define the technology as a computer system that can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” (emphasis added).
How the system will make this determination is unclear, as is the government’s potential role in apprehending suspected drunk drivers (more on that later).
But the law’s language could not be more clear: New motor vehicles must have a computer system to “monitor” drivers, and the system must be able to prevent vehicle operation if it detects impairment.
-----
‘Secure in Persons and Effects’?
The unpleasant truth is that lawmakers slipped into a massive spending bill a mandate that stands to require all new vehicles to have AI-driven technology that can disable your vehicle if the technology determines you’ve had one beer too many. And fact-checkers are using headlines to make it sound as if the legislation does no such thing.
It’s true there is currently no mechanism in the legislation that would require law enforcement to be notified if drivers are suspected of inebriation. But the Associated Press notes that the law “leaves most of the details up to NHTSA” (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to determine at a future date.
From my reading of the bill, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent NHTSA from requesting or receiving this data. Does anyone believe that in 2027, if the NHTSA requested that system manufacturers turn over the information they collect, it would be told no? Don’t bet on it. The Twitter Files show how quick companies comply when the feds come knocking on their door to retrieve their data, and just how little they care about the privacy of Americans.
More: https://fee.org/articles/the-feds-vehicle-kill-switch-mandate-is-a-gross-and-dangerous-violation-of-privacy (https://fee.org/articles/the-feds-vehicle-kill-switch-mandate-is-a-gross-and-dangerous-violation-of-privacy)
-
If you piss-off the government, they can disable your car. If you go somewhere 'not authorized', your car will be turned off.
Your car will only be enable by governmental control and permission according to your social credit score.
-
It has to receive command. That means antenna, or through a secondary device like your phone... So if you break the antennas and refuse to enable a Bluetooth device, there is no means...
Of course, nothing I own has that complication to begin with... And just like that, neither will yours.
-
It has to receive command. That means antenna, or through a secondary device like your phone... So if you break the antennas and refuse to enable a Bluetooth device, there is no means...
Of course, nothing I own has that complication to begin with... And just like that, neither will yours.
To be the threat to liberty it is being portrayed as, that would be true. To meet the plain meaning of the mandate as written, the disabling of the vehicle could be done by an onboard computer system with sensors without any interaction with an outside server or the government.
-
To be the threat to liberty it is being portrayed as, that would be true. To meet the plain meaning of the mandate as written, the disabling of the vehicle could be done by an onboard computer system with sensors without any interaction with an outside server or the government.
Let's go there. You have the bad fortune to be out in a blizzard. The roads are slippery, traction sketchy. You may be fishtailing here and there, may have spinouts or even spins and recover, with the indicated speed (how fast your tires are turning) far in excess of your actual forward progress.
Would some arbitrary line of code leave you shut down in the middle of that, even though you aren't actually driving like a maniac?
Scenario 2.
You just bought a used vehicle from a notorious drunk, one which thankfully was still in reasonably good shape. That person is observed getting hammered by local police doing a walk through, but who haven't got the word that the vehicle is now yours. Does your vehicle get shut down because someone didn't pass the word or check the new registration?
Scenario 3.
You are driving within a couple of miles of a hospital when your passenger has a heart attack. You are at most a couple minutes out, straight shot to the ER, far less time than pulling over and waiting for an ambulance would take, so you throw on your flashers and make a run for it.
At 20 over the limit, your car shuts down due to an arbitrary line of code.
The same goes with a kid in anaphylactic shock, or even someone injured.
In a nutshell, this insanity WILL cost lives. But then, "unintended consequences" are the hallmark of Leftist policy.
-
Scenario 2 is not the onboard computer shutting down the vehicle without outside interaction, so it is not an argument against the design I proposed for meeting the mandate without giving the government a way to shut down your vehicle.
Scenario 3 requires that the design not regard mere speeding (even 20 over the posted limit) as a basis for a shut-down, since speeding may be required in an emergency.
Scenario 1 simply requires that the traction control system interact with swerve detection sensor so that swerving when traction is lost does not shut down the vehicle. Likewise swerving once or twice in short order should not, since one could be swerving to avoid a pedestrian, animal or unexpected hazard.
So long as the shut-down mechanism cannot be triggered by an external actor (the state) it's a technical problem to get right, not a threat to liberty.
-
Scenario 2 is not the onboard computer shutting down the vehicle without outside interaction, so it is not an argument against the design I proposed for meeting the mandate without giving the government a way to shut down your vehicle.
Scenario 3 requires that the design not regard mere speeding (even 20 over the posted limit) as a basis for a shut-down, since speeding may be required in an emergency.
Scenario 1 simply requires that the traction control system interact with swerve detection sensor so that swerving when traction is lost does not shut down the vehicle. Likewise swerving once or twice in short order should not, since one could be swerving to avoid a pedestrian, animal or unexpected hazard.
So long as the shut-down mechanism cannot be triggered by an external actor (the state) it's a technical problem to get right, not a threat to liberty.
And that "technical problem" will cost lives long before it is fixed. Not sure where you are from, but in North Dakota people can and do freeze to death. Forget walking to that light in the distance, it may be 3 miles or more away and that trip in 20+ MPH winds and subzero temperatures is likely to be your last. That is why all this is critical. Now suppose the traction control (I never have owned a vehicle with it--i don't even like ABS) fails. Then what?
If the idea is to keep drunks off the road, there are other ways to do that.
-
If you piss-off the government, they can disable your car. If you go somewhere 'not authorized', your car will be turned off.
Your car will only be enable by governmental control and permission according to your social credit score.
THEY will never openly say it upfront or in writing ... but this is what they want. This is the ultimate goal.
And they will get there by baby-steps.
-
To be the threat to liberty it is being portrayed as, that would be true. To meet the plain meaning of the mandate as written, the disabling of the vehicle could be done by an onboard computer system with sensors without any interaction with an outside server or the government.
Sensors can be disabled or fooled. not worried about that.
-
It has to receive command. That means antenna, or through a secondary device like your phone... So if you break the antennas and refuse to enable a Bluetooth device, there is no means...
Of course, nothing I own has that complication to begin with... And just like that, neither will yours.
Same way with our HVAC thermostats. I easily see future government intrusion of your settings, and energy use.
-
To be the threat to liberty it is being portrayed as, that would be true. To meet the plain meaning of the mandate as written, the disabling of the vehicle could be done by an onboard computer system with sensors without any interaction with an outside server or the government.
Who needs tribunals like J6, when they could easily eliminate conservatives by cutting off the car in the middle of a freeway going 80.
-
Anyone looking for a new career? I suggest "Kill Switch Disabler."
-
NTSB Calls for Technology to Reduce Speeding in All New Cars
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20231114.aspx (https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20231114.aspx)
WASHINGTON (Nov. 14, 2023) – The National Transportation Safety Board investigation into a multivehicle collision in North Las Vegas, Nevada, last year that resulted in nine fatalities has led the board to recommend a requirement for intelligent speed assistance technology in all new cars. The board issued the recommendations Tuesday at a public board meeting after determining the crash was caused by excessive speed, drug-impaired driving and Nevada’s failure to deter the driver’s speeding recidivism due to systemic deficiencies, despite numerous speeding citations.
Intelligent speed assistance technology, or ISA, uses a car’s GPS location compared with a database of posted speed limits and its onboard cameras to help ensure safe and legal speeds. Passive ISA systems warn a driver when the vehicle exceeds the speed limit through visual, sound, or haptic alerts, and the driver is responsible for slowing the car. Active systems include mechanisms that make it more difficult, but not impossible, to increase the speed of a vehicle above the posted speed limit and those that electronically limit the speed of the vehicle to fully prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit.
Bad record, drug impaired driving, insufficient enforcement....and the solution is (envelope please) Mess with YOUR vehicle.
Once again, people are expected to give up their capabilities and rights because of systemic failures and/or someone on drugs.
There are times when being able to go faster than the posted limit can save a life or lives, and when not being able to do so could cost them.
-
On another thread, I posted some info about Rep. Thomas Massie's unsuccessful effort to kill the "kill switch" legislation. Here's more:
House Republicans Help Dems Preserve ‘Kill Switch’ Mandate That Could Shut Down Your Car
By: Tristan Justice
November 08, 2023
House Republicans failed to defund a federal “kill switch” mandate Tuesday night requiring all vehicles produced in 2026 and onward to feature technology that can automatically disable the vehicle “if impairment is detected.” This lays the groundwork for corporate and government access to monitor and interfere with personal movement.
By a vote of 229 to 201, the lower chamber rejected an amendment proposed by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to defund the mandate embedded in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Massie’s measure received 210 “no” votes from Democrats and 19 from Republicans. Just two Democrats supported the amendment and 199 Republicans voted for it. Eight members did not participate in the late-night vote.
The 2021 infrastructure law passed by Congress requires car manufactures to include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment” in vehicles. The provision requires such technology to “passively monitor the performance of a driver” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.” In other words, manufacturers will be required to implement a “kill switch” mechanism on cars that can disable the vehicle based on performance. ...
The introduction of a “kill switch” on all new vehicles coincides with a growing push among the far left to limit freedom of movement. Often citing climate change as justification for new measures to limit transit, policymakers from California to the United Kingdom have introduced rules that would curb the use of private vehicles. ...
Read entire article at The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/08/house-republicans-help-dems-preserve-kill-switch-mandate-that-could-shut-down-your-car/)
-
Same way with our HVAC thermostats. I easily see future government intrusion of your settings, and energy use.
It already has happened... California, I believe, during a heat wave. the State took control of smart thermostats in order to reduce air conditioning's impact on the grid.
-
It already has happened... California, I believe, during a heat wave. the State took control of smart thermostats in order to reduce air conditioning's impact on the grid.
I think I will stick with my old bimetallic/mercury switch. It has worked for the last 60 years or so...
-
I think I will stick with my old bimetallic/mercury switch. It has worked for the last 60 years or so...
Just got a new one a few years back... same ol round, gold colored thing from Honeywell... Cost me 12 bucks. Works fine. :beer:
-
Josh Power 🇺🇸
@JoshPower80
'Your vehicle cannot be driven because the software update was not successful'
Will could easily become 'your vehicle cannot be driven because of your recent post on social media' and eventually, 'your digital currency is not accepted here, you cannot buy our product because your social credit score does not align with federal requirements and our stakeholder values'
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCRzmiKXgAAJP30?format=jpg&name=900x900)
8:44 AM · Dec 26, 2023
-
It already has happened... California, I believe, during a heat wave. the State took control of smart thermostats in order to reduce air conditioning's impact on the grid.
Just have to disconnect the rheostat and run your AC 24/7. That's what they are encouraging everyone to do.
-
Just have to disconnect the rheostat and run your AC 24/7. That's what they are encouraging everyone to do.
Or buy it a dumb thermostat for 12 bucks and plug that in... Believe it or not, many, many generations of Man never had to access their HVAC from their phone... :whistle: :laugh: